Latest Stories

First Circuit Strikes Down Defense of Marriage Act but Stays Tax Remedies

The
First Circuit Court of Appeals declared part of the federal
Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional on Thursday,
upholding a Massachusetts federal district court decision (Massachusetts v. United States Dep’t
of Health and Human Servs., No. 10-2204 (1st
Cir. 5/31/12), aff’g Gill v. Office of Personnel
Management, 699 F. Supp. 2d 374 (D. Mass. 2010)). The
appeals court held that the act’s denial of federal benefits
to lawfully married same-sex couples violated the Equal
Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

At issue
was Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, P.L. 104-199
(DOMA), which defines “marriage” for purposes of federal law,
as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as
husband and wife.”

The First Circuit, like the lower
court, focused on two aspects of DOMA: (1) that it prevents
same-sex married couples from filing joint federal tax
returns, thereby preventing them from benefiting from the
lower tax burden available to most married couples who file
jointly, and (2) that it prevents the surviving spouse of a
same-sex marriage from collecting Social Security survivor
benefits.

The plaintiffs in the several cases combined
in the lower court were lawfully married same-sex couples.
They had filed amended, joint returns and requested refunds
based on their lower tax liabilities as joint filers.

The lower court found that Section 3 of DOMA was
unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. The court
held that the government had no basis for denying benefits to
same-sex married couples and that Congress had no legitimate
interest in applying a uniform definition of marriage for
purposes of determining federal rights, benefits, and
privileges.

The district court ordered specific remedies
for the plaintiffs’ tax claims (Gill v. Office of Personnel
Management, amended judgment (8/17/10)). These remedies
included ordering the payment of federal tax refunds, plus
statutory interest under Sec. 6621, based on the tax owed on
the plaintiffs’ amended joint returns. The court, however,
stayed this relief, pending appeal.

The Justice
Department originally defended DOMA in the suit, but later
filed a revised brief arguing that the equal protection claim
should be assessed under a standard of “intermediate scrutiny”
used for gender discrimination cases and that DOMA failed
under that standard. The First Circuit refused to extend
intermediate scrutiny to this case, but nevertheless affirmed
the lower court’s holding.

The circuit court noted that
DOMA does not prevent same-sex marriage, where permitted by
state law, but penalizes same-sex married couples by limiting
their tax, Social Security, and other federal benefits. It
said this burden was comparable to burdens the Supreme Court
found to be substantial in earlier equal protection cases
involving “historic patterns of disadvantage suffered by the
group adversely affected by the statute” at issue in those
cases.

The appeals court affirmed the district court’s
holding, but continued the stay of the relief ordered,
anticipating that the Supreme Court will eventually decide the
issue.

Don’t get lost in the fog of legislative changes, developing tax issues, and newly evolving tax planning strategies. Tax Section membership will help you stay up to date and make your practice more efficient.